How much do we have to pay you to let Merlin take the class for you?
Short version I need a brain to take a class for me.
Very last class needed to graduate, however due to various reasons I won't bore you with I am beyond terrible at math. So if you can do this type of stuff in your sleep and want some cash please send me a private message for more details please include also how much it will cost for you to spend the time effort. Thank you.
How much do we have to pay you to let Merlin take the class for you?
I was also going to recommend Merlin, he is great with stats.
Lol @ this thread
I was a graduate instructor for psych stats during the summer, and have TAed the class twice. Not offering, but I'm curious what kind of cash you're offering. That's a lot of time
Hatorade don't cheat your way out of the only real class in your degree.
Dude, you are so good at video games. (We stealthed our way through snowy forests and then killed Juggernauts in Call of Duty together. I seem to remember you did most of the thinking.) How can you not be able to do a thing? I'm not hating because I don't actually drink Hatorade(tm), but my kneeejerk reaction is to agree with Tuco.
Hatorade, are you offering me $1-2k to take the class for you?
I think this is the stuff mist teaches, she's in the shaw atm.
By her account, everyone in her college has to cheat in order to pass, so I believe it is safe to say not much teaching is going on there.
These courses are pretty abysmal... you don't need to be "good at math" to pass them, because they won't teach you any of the underlying math. It's almost always a course in the most basic operations of SPSS or whatever interface-based statistics tool your university pays for. In a good class, you'll be given simulated data and step-by-step instructions on how to analyze them. In a very good class, you'll go through the motions of testing these assumptions before doing the tests and the instructor will tell you that there is no data set ever that meets them. But half of the class won't pay attention to that part. In an exceptional class, you'd actually work with real data and learn how to deal with such limitations -- not in an introductory course, but one in the second semester. You can count the universities that do this on one hand, and half the class will be PhD students whose undergraduate universities weren't among them.
Probably reflects most college classes -- at least the ones where you don't get an A just for submitting half the assignments on time.Originally Posted by Lejina
The distance education classes at Western Oklahoma State College are still my favorites: Need 3 Quick Credits to Play Ball? Call Western Oklahoma - Athletics - The Chronicle of Higher Education
You can transfer them to "real" state universities and boost your GPA, which apparently a lot of athletes do. They teach you pretty advanced skills over 10 days:
And people wonder why the fuck they're unemployable after graduating college...Expectations include:
Creating a new folder in Windows XP.
Learning to maximize, minimize, re-size, and close windows.
Copying, moving, renaming, and deleting files.
Finding files and folders.
Which universities would be counted on that hand?
That is fairly accurate. You could even memorize a statistical analysis flow chart, for social sciences, which makes the process even more trivial. It's pretty rare for undergraduate classes to get beyond the most basic forms of analysis and it comes down to: 1) learning how to use the program, and 2) picking the right analysis and/or defending the one you choose in a way that makes sense.
This is not a math class, as Soriak noted. It's a follow the tutorials in the book for a piece of software class.
I don't teach these classes but it's the kind of work I do all day because the other people in the psych department need me to do their work for them.
If you've ever done any spreadsheet functions in Excel, this stuff is easy as shit. Your class probably won't actually use Excel but it's still basically the same shit.
That's actually a good question -- I only know of one course for sure at Carnegie Mellon, which is for undergrads in statistics: 36-402, Undergraduate Advanced Data Analysis (2013)
Check out this midterm, which is posted on the site. That's what a good assignment in the social sciences should look like: here's a problem, here's a data set, now go use what you learned and write a paper with your analyses and findings.
I actually heard about this homework assignment, which came out around the time when a mistake made by two Harvard economists made it into the popular press. Basically, they failed to drag their Excel formula all the way down; once you fix that, their findings change significantly. (Oh yeah, their research was cited by policymakers in Europe for their austerity measures -- whoops.) Turns out that there was much more wrong with the analysis, and that assignment showed undergrads how to do it properly. Spoiler alert: the entire effect goes away and, in some cases, more debt actually leads to more growth. And that's why you don't skip statistics classes... or use Excel for your analysis.
Helps that all the professor's lecture notes are written like a book and available as a PDF free of charge, so a lot of people outside of Carnegie Mellon use it to teach themselves. The perk of being a grad student or professor is that you can just stop by your stats department and there's someone who will take the time to help you out if you get stuck. And the thing with stats is that if you use it, you should continuously refresh your understanding and learn new tools. Some of the directed acyclic stuff in the last chapters of his book is based on publications from 1-2 years ago and lets you do really cool stuff with respect to establishing causality (a huge problem in economics). The computing power to do that just wouldn't have been available even 5 years ago, whereas now you can just create your farm on Amazon and the sky's the limit.
So I figured I'd be save with up to 5 universities, because I really can't think of more than one and have not heard about a similar class offered elsewhere.
Last edited by Soriak; 08-28-2014 at 07:06 PM.
Agreed. For those looking to pick up a thing or two, following is in the order from easiest to hardest:
Coursera.org
Statistical Learning | Stanford Online
Introduction to Statistics Course | edX, Introduction to Statistics: Probability | edX, Introduction to Statistics: Inference | edX
And a bit more advanced:
http://statweb.stanford.edu/~tibs/ElemStatLearn/
Last edited by wormie; 09-01-2014 at 05:44 PM.
Knowing all the underlying math isn't really important unless you are doing actual research imho. Most people would be far better off just knowing how to read the conclusions of a paper and what the stats mean, but I don't see all that underlying matrix algebra and optimization stuff being that important unless you are doing your own work and not just trying to read someone elses.
Lol stats. Business math is a prerequisite for business stats here. Show up to business stats and proceed to use zero of the math I learned and did everything by excel. Very jimmy rustling.
Yea OK, I really want to differentiate trigonometric equations on paper again... In actuality there's a theoretical component that gives way to the practical component to pretty much every curriculum besides hard math. Even sometimes math, I guess. I remember learning some things that the professor would tell is we could not understand the proof, so here's how you solve it in 3 easy steps.
The way math is taught is a fucking travesty. College math should start with a logic/proofs course. Followed by discrete math and then by one or two courses in slightly above basic graph theory/combinatronics/group theory/number theory to solidify logic abilities. Then they should start teaching calculus. But not the retarded "here is some formulas, memorize this to solve problems on tests and nowhere else" method. It should be what most colleges call Advanced or Honors Calc. Teach that shit up to derivatives then follow up with another semester up to integration/measure theory. Then dive into more interesting shit which would be for math/stats/CS majors. Oh and linear algebra, linear algebra everywhere.
The way it is now just makes people not understand math and hate it and you cant blame them because it seems useless when you only learn shit that lets you pass a test in a course that you are taking only because its required and one that you dont understand in the first place.
I agree with you in principle, but if anything the pushback is harder in the other direction. It is the rare student who is interested in proofs, everyone just wants to learn the equations, not how to prove them or why they work. If you have a math class that is required for any business degree, they are constantly pushing for all proofs or even talk of proofs to be taken out. Even for courses required by engineering degrees, you have the same sort of thing. My facepalm as an undergrad was having a choice between "statistics" and "mathematical statistics". Wtf, there is a statistics class without the math?? Pretty much.
It seems that professors in any degree outside of mathematics just want their student to memorize the equations and could give a fuck about anything else. "Just apply it, you don't need to understand it". It seems weird to me, but changing it isn't going to happen and maybe I am in the wrong. Maybe all they really need to do is apply it shrug. Hell, look at this thread. Hatorade, who is probably far above the average student, still was tempted to completely skip the one math course in his entire curriculum.
Want to play the next big MMO with us? check out Black Desert Online
The problem probably goes back to k-12. People are so terrified of math that when they are faced with something other than rote memorization, they shit themselves and complain to departments who in turn bitch at teachers. If logic was taught earlier than college all this shit might be avoided. Then again we have Professors who think shit like this:
Is Algebra Necessary? - NYTimes.com
so who the fuck knows.
Knowing the underlying math is not useful for people doing research in the behavioral sciences either. You need to know the conceptual very well, and to be able to test assumptions. The math is not needed.
I don't get the critique. No one with a bachelors degree in beh science is doing any research to my knowledge. The stats that we teach, at least, is half math half conceptual, and that + methods is fine for a bachelors. The info classes (ie everything else) are way more important. Only once you go to grad level is a thorough understanding of stats important, but still not the math.
I think people hate math because beyond simple multiplication and division, its almost all irrelevant in basic day to day living. You dont need to know why derivatives exist or what they are to get through your day.
Also you need not know the principles or mechanics behind something to make use of it.
It's a valid point, scientific advancement at some point has to rely upon accepting the foundation and work of others once accepted as fact instead of reinventing everything. I mean, I went through differential equations, multidimensional calculus and linear algebra. I know for a fact many of the proofs for some differential equations are just beyond my learning to comprehend at this point. I use some of those math concepts at work, but I am content with the fact that I have the capacity to prove most of these things (or at least understand the proofs) IF I needed to put the effort into them (years in some cases) but I don't need to.
Practical vs. theoretical I suppose.
I was arguing with my professor in one of these classes and accidentally derived the Poisson Distribution almost perfectly over the course trying to make my point. I mean, the professor obviously knew where I was headed and kinda tricked me into going through with the whole thing.
That's when I started taking more serious math classes. I still feel like I kinda fucking suck at it most of the time though.
Four hundred dollar book eh? Seems real
400 dollar book to learn a software program?
Want to play the next big MMO with us? check out Black Desert Online
I've had some crazy expensive books, but they capped out around $250.
400 for a textbook is time to have a very serious chat with the instructor and then up the line of administration until someone is willing to admit that they're being bribed.
We all know textbooks are the biggest scam in the world.
Come on guys we gotta update our basic calculus textbook, theres been a fundamental break through in the power rule!
There's a big push in my department (and I guess the field more broadly) to move toward using R instead of SPSS/Stata. It's open source software and with that comes a fantastic community of developers. So tons of free books teaching you how to do basic things, and even proper "textbooks" (with exercises and all that) cost like $25. Many of them are free of charge through university eBook/journal subscriptions.
There's something seriously wrong with textbook prices and (with some exceptions) it's really irresponsible of professors to require students to buy latest editions. About the only exception I could see is for books that have online content and it's a 100+ people lecture class. It's simply not feasible to do regularly graded, individual assignments there, so having an automated system online does improve on the kind of assignments you can give. When you blow $40k a year on tuition, it's reasonable to spend an extra $200 to get way more out of a class.
But in cases where it's really just about assignments from the textbook that could easily (and legally) be copied for the class -- and where students could simply read a previous edition? Yeah, that's just irresponsible to mandate.
When I got my degree the new big thing at that time was to put a lot of material (tests, homework, learning "exercises") online so that even if you had a used book, you'd have to buy an access code which were damn near as much as the book (new books of course came with a one-time use code). Now of course your prof didn't HAVE to use that stuff, and thus not require you to have an access code, but yeah, too many lazy profs.
I'm just not capitalist enough I guess. I'm all for making profits and shit, but such basic things as educational textbooks (imo) shouldn't be a $14 BILLION dollar industry in the US. Fortunately, my socialist state of California is making an investment into creating their own college and k-12 textbooks to offer schools for free/at a mere fraction of standard prices.
College textbook costs reflect a phenomena in college tuition costs where subsidies and a predatory lending environment has baked these "fixed" benefits onto an already inflated market cost. A UCSD study by Douglas Turner, who's now in the Treasury Department that found that even small adjustments in federal student aid grants would provoke sharp spikes in tuition costs. Basically universities have baked assumed benefits mainly like the GI bill, financial aid and student loans into the base cost of everything... so if the government is willing to front $10k, and the student can raise 50k via scholarships or the GI Bill and then sign up for another 50k via student loans, the universities set the tuition at the value that would capture the maximum potential of that and provide relief as necessary---doing otherwise would be "leaving money on the table". Everything in higher education, from books to housing, follow that model.
As much as I hate the predatory practices of some schools, let's not disassociate the change in culture regarding higher education and the fact that higher ed was traditionally a 'supply' based economy. In any situation where more money is willing to be paid for an object/service due to perceived value or scarcity, the costs are going to go up necessarily. The real culprit is (once again) the baby boomers here for two reasons:
1) Surplus wealth and population boom drove competition for schools once those kids hit their college years in the late '60s/early '70s. Universities could increase prices because the money was there.
2) The idiotic idea that all the boomer's kids could have a better life simply by having the opportunities their parents didn't, even though not everyone could exploit them properly (ie, become doctors/lawyers/scientists/etc.).
Both of these undercurrents (plus I'm sure to some degree the ideals of the civil rights movement if not the 1964 bill itself) led to the HEA and its amendments over that time frame because not only were costs going to rise as a huge population boom hit these schools, but also everyone felt entitled to attend even if they didn't have the capacity or the drive. Over the years this has continued without abatement - higher ed prices are absurd and only continue to rise as students and parents will literally pay any price for the dubious chance to attend college - their child certainly is not going to be the one without the brains to graduate! Universities have latched onto this trend and are offering less and less complicated fields of study: 'soft sciences' and 'liberal arts' as if they offer anything of value to the student who is not already driven to learn and succeed without a non-specific education.
What you have now is a situation where any 'successful' person must have schooling from K-16. Gone are the ideas of trades and hard work. There is a massive social epidemic going on in this country. I've seen 8/hr jobs posted on CL for admin assistants that require a BS. A baccalaureate degree for 8/hr that you could not obtain for much less than twenty thousand dollars if you skimp and attend lesser for profit or certain state schools. Add to this the credit driven economy where people consider credit 'free money' and do not consider the consequences of repayment and you have a huge recipe for disaster. It's hardly illuminating to simply point the fingers at a university because they charge 'too much' when the reality is our social problems are so bad they could double their prices and the only change would be a cry for more Stafford loan allowances.
TL;DR: fuck baby boomers.
Last edited by Palum; 09-21-2014 at 07:39 AM.
Having to really put in the time each night but have yet to get below a 100 on the weekly quiz, last one was rough due to teacher skipping two chapters but once I caught up it clicked and was actually pretty easy. 19 people failed the quiz pretty badly (sub 50) I imagine putting the time in to catch up is what saved me. Glad I am doing this myself, confidence rising.
Math is not scary. It just requires work.
Its got a coule of square roots and in the denomator to boot. Shit is terrifying to at least 70% of the poulation.
More advanced math does start to get pretty hard and scary. You have to learn notation as a language of itself. It's the only way. Trying to translate will wrek u.
My brain does not work that way. I am delighted and amazed that for some people it does... but fuuuuuuuuuuuuck. I struggle with english.
Well, notation is an insignificant part of learning math. The point of notation in mathematics is to simplify while still not having any ambiguity. The language of mathematics is nothing like learning another human language. Part of the problem I had with learning other human languages is dealing with that ambiguity.
The only time notation in mathematics is an issue is when going between different fields. Even then, it is usually a pretty simple matter of translating some notation to your own.
It's not the notation itself that is hard, it's the restraint required to think ONLY in that framework that starts to get difficult.
Notation is a significant part of math. It communicates the form and the function. Sure, the notation itself is mutable, but the concept that notation expresses (which are not mutable, and can only be best expressed in this particular fashion) are not.
And that IS difficult. It's not an insurmountable difficulty, but the shit does start to get hard. And there comes a point where if you're not thinking in specific mathematical symbols (if it's standard notation or some variation you've concoted for yourself) you're not going to be able to manipulate the concepts. Not being a linquist I dunno if that "technically" counts as a distinct language -- but it fits the bill for me.
That side of my brain will literally only go so far before it yells "fuck OFF" so loud that I get a headache.
Mathematical concepts are not limited to the form they take on paper. People can use whatever notation they wish for any mathematical concept. Only reason some notation is uniform is to allow other people to be able to begin reading it faster.
A lot of people seem to be afraid of math due to notation seemingly being something special and weird and I was just attempting to point out that this is really silly.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)